Barrister Acquitted for Possession Of Indecent Images

by Sam Mitchell - Paralegal

06 September 2012, filed under Ecommerce

 A barrister was brought to court due to images he had in his possession. The images were labelled “obscene.” The case certainly has a bearing on what will occur in future regarding such images and people who possess them. This was the first case in which images address anal fisting. This practise is legal despite the images being more like pornography. In fact, a 2008 act says “urethral sounding” is pornography when extreme. A barrister was acquitted for holding such images based on the court case in which the 1959 act “Obscene Publications” was used to determine the case.

This act stated discipline, bondage, fisting, masochism, or sadism in DVDs is obscene publication. The barrister was charged due to an email with six photo attachments. The email and images were not found by police though. His account showed the email existed. It seemed the account was set up for the express purpose of sending sexually related messages.

The individual was fired from his position working at the Fire Authority due to his arrest. He was a man well respected and with a good character. He has not worked since, unable to find a job due to his arrest. The charges could have given him a three year jail sentence.
The court decided to charge him with five counts of extreme images. Prosecutors claimed there were three images with urethral sounding in the man’s inbox. The defence stated this was not true in terms that no injuries were shown with the activities depicted.

It was stated that the barrister took the images himself then sent them on to those who were at the party they were taken at. The case was heard for a week. When the jury went to deliberate they came back after 1.5 hours. The verdict was not guilty. It is a case that could have changed things forever in terms of sending images in email. It also could have changed the prior 1959 and 2008 acts created for such concepts as porn. The barrister is at least able to walk out of court a free man.

This case from earlier in the year also makes an interesting read.